The Distillation Chamber

This paragraph opens the first chapter of Science Indoors and Out, written in 1930 for Grade 7 and 8 students in the province of Manitoba (at the time a province with a largely rural population and hard hit by the Depression). The chapter introduces the experimental and observational methods that will be used throughout the school year.

When talking about how textbooks are traditionally used in science teaching, they are usually described as dry, impersonal books for transmitting facts. I am constantly surprised though by early 20th century textbooks that, like this example, emphasize the experiences of students and often address them directly with personal pronouns. Many of these "traditional" texts make a significant effort to be engaging, active and relevant. They're not always what we think they were.

These are the closing lines of the high school physics textbook Elements of Physics for Canadian Schools published in 1937. It's striking to me not only for the rosy view of science (It will never let us down!) but for the strange understanding of scientific laws. Scientific laws are repeatable, predictable and observable patterns. Gravitational laws help predict, for example, the amount of gravitational force caused by different objects. Newton's laws can predict how much acceleration an object will feel. Many of these laws are context dependent. Newton's for example are excellent for most everyday situation but they are inaccurate when applied in very extreme situations. They are not, however, breakable in the sense of legal statutes. Scientific laws are merely descriptions relationships we can see and measure. Learning about them doesn't provide rules  for anyone to follow (other than for how to solve mathematical relationships) and so there are no consequences for breaking them because there's nothing to break.

Okay, so I don't agree with the way a historical textbook talks about laws. So what? Turns out that this is a much more widespread understanding than I would have expected and it has an influence on how high school students understand what science is. I recently wrote about a study I did of Grade 10 students' perceptions of the right type of people to do science. I was really surprised that the view from this old textbook was repeated by the students. It still seems to be repeated and passed down. One of the students said in his interview:

“When people take science they think of like strict rules that can’t be broken or anything. There’s laws to science, like conservation of energy, conservation of mass. So it’s like set down rules that you have to follow. If you don’t follow them you’re going to end up doing something weird or wrong. I guess people expect you to follow a set of rules that are set down for you, guidelines so that nothing out of the ordinary happens, nothing really weird or odd happens.”

That's why I keep dusting off these old books. These ghosts of science education past--the traditions, beliefs and sometimes misunderstandings--are important not just for understanding history but for understanding why science education is the way it is today.

Clifton F. Hodge, a professor at Clark University , made this comment in a 1907 article about the ever expanding opinions, approaches and rationales for nature-study (science education's sibling and in some ways predecessor). I sat on a discussion panel for the radio program Skeptically Speaking last night about culture and traditions and spoke about how difficult change has been in science education, at least partly because of competing ideas and traditions. I needed a reminder today of Hodge's optimism that a multitude of opinions can also be a sign of healthy discussion and interest. (The podcast of the episode will be available Friday, Nov. 25 at http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/episodes/139-culture-and-tradition)

Hodge, C.F. (1907). The established principles of Nature Study. Nature-Study Review, 3, 7-8.

Quoted in:

This observation was written in 1850 by Frederika Bremer and recorded in her collected letters. It illustrates a changing view of what education should provide for girls. It can also challenge some of our assumptions about science and girls.

In Bremer's time, formal education was changing and starting to become common. Boys' education focused on classical subjects with the addition of some science for a modern touch. Classical history, Latin and Greek, however, were considered too difficult and inappropriate for girls. Science, on the other hand, was an excellent choice for them. It was academically challenging while also providing useful everyday information considered necessary for a woman's life. Looking at the curricula for high schools in the Northeastern US between 1820-1842, the sciences were included in more of the girls' schools than the boys'. Astronomy, for example, was offered in 50% of girls' schools compared to only 33% of boys'. The case was similar for natural philosophy, chemistry, botany and natural history.

In the mid 19th century, views about science, education and girls were in some ways the reverse of what they are now. History and languages were considered male subjects and science more appropriate for girls. This should provide a little challenge to the idea of school subjects being naturally more interesting or easier for boys and girls. Those ideas are cultural and they change over time.

Bremer, F. (1924). America of the fifties: Letters of Frederika Bremer. A.B. Benson, (Ed.). New York: The American-Scandinavian Foundation. p. 285.

As quoted in:

From W. Littler's preface to the 1948 middle school textbook A Junior Physics. Littler was the Senior Science Master at Hele's School, Exeter and author of several chemistry and physics textbooks. This textbook is denser in concepts and equations than similar modern texts for the same age group. As Littler's preface shows though, he was concerned with more than just helping students memorize facts. He recognized the importance of the people who make up the story of physics. In each sections there is also an effort to ask students to apply the concepts to their lives and to relevant problems. The idea of making science engaging and relevant is, like many other ideas, not a new one. Unfortunately then, as now, these sections that emphasized context often were the first to go when pressures of assessment, time, teacher expertise, and resources closed in.

An important reminder that the past in science education is often not what we think it was. So many reform efforts open by comparing themselves to older methods that emphasized rote learning from textbooks but that past never existed. There was no wide spread movement arguing that science teaching should ever be that way. Sometimes it ends up happening that science is taught with a rote reliance on textbooks because of constraints such as budgets, available materials, teacher expertise, class sizes and more. Reform efforts need to remember that the challenge will never be in convincing people (teachers, schools, parents) that science should be active and exploratory. The challenge is in making sure that schools and teachers are not so limited by assessments, materials and budgets that they cannot enact the type of science education that has been advocated all along.

From Archibald Stouffer’s preface to the elementary science textbook Canadian Wonderworld of Science.

I couldn't resist posting one more excerpt from the 1914 classic A Civic Biology. As I said in yesterday's post, the inclusion of science education in schools was often driven by people interested in fostering social improvement. Science was seen as a modern way curing social problems.

Inevitably, though, this caused conflict because it was difficult to separate what might now be seen as medical hygiene (e.g., disease prevention) from moral hygiene (e.g., temperance and alcohol prohibition). Hygiene also held an uneasy place in science education due to later connections to eugenics and more practically because it took away time from what others saw are real science education (e.g., laboratory time and field work). There have been ongoing discussions for at least the past two decades about the purposes of science education. A Civic Biology illustrates that this situation of having multiple and sometimes conflicting purposes is nothing new. Science education has never known anything different.

Hunter, G.W. (1914). A civic biology. New York: American Book Company. (p. 15)

For further reading about the conflicts of purpose that have surrounded science education, see:

Kohlstedt, S.G. (2010). Teaching children science: Hands-on nature study in North America 1890-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This quote is from the 1914 classic A Civic Biology, a innovative introductory high school textbook that framed the study of biology as a problem solving activity. It is an ancestor of some of today's resources that focus on Science-Technology-Society approaches and socio-scientific issues.

This quote is different from most that I highlight because it illustrates one way that science education has changed, on the surface anyway. Current justifications for science education tend to emphasize economic arguments (science is valuable for jobs and the economy), arguments related to citizenship in our technological society (science is necessary for understanding and navigating our modern world of fast paced technological change) or arguments related to science as an essential human endeavor (science is important because it is a masterful human accomplishment).

Science education as we know it today, however, has its roots in natural philosophy and nature study movements. These often emphasized science as an avenue for social improvement and encouraging particular social values. The language that we use, especially around adaptations, ecology and environmental education still shows some of this heritage. It's important not to forget where it comes from.

Without actual freedom to explore, investigate, propose solutions and explanations, and even to fail in all of these, students can't really learn the complex art of scientific investigation. In this chapter, from 1960, Paul Brandwein uses his 10 years of experience observing in more than 1000 schools to draw valuable insight into how students can learn to really think like biologists, emphasizing that following step by step procedures and a strict list called "the scientific method" (often found in middle school classrooms) cannot accomplish it. Science is not that simple. This was written before the Nature of Science became a focus for science education research but his observations fit well within that tradition and still ring true. Brandwein was, at the time, Director of Education at the Conservation Foundation and Assistant to the President of Harcourt, Brace and World.

More sage words from Drs. Miller and Blaydes in the 1962 biology teacher education textbook Methods and Materials for Teaching the Biological Sciences. This is a real challenge in teacher education, helping beginning teachers understand that there is no one best way to teach science or organize a science course. That is not to say that nothing is known about good science teaching. On the contrary, the skilled teacher has a vast and well understood variety of strategies, approaches, tools and knowledge that they can draw on to suit the context, needs and experiences of their students and community.

This is the surprisingly candid preface to a biology teaching textbook from 1962. It's a really important question to ask not only at the beginning of a teaching career but often throughout one as well. I was pleasantly surprised to find this message given such a prominent place in a textbook, and honestly even more surprised when I realized that the authors are not school teachers but university science professors (one a professor of zoology and the other of botany). It says a lot about their respect and understanding of school teaching as well as, probably, their views of their own university teaching responsibilities. I would like to shake their hands if I could.

A statement from Eugene Peckman, School Science Supervisor, Pittsburgh published in 1960. Not only is this a familiar sentiment, showing us how many of those problems have remained unsolved for half a century, but it also challenges assumptions about what is often remembered as the golden age of science education. The sputnik area was not necessarily a time of paradise in school laboratories. Even then they were poorly supplied, difficult to maintain and facing budgetary constraints. Improving science education today can only happen if we remember that. Wishing it were 1960 again won't help.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

From: Hurd, P.D. (1959). Teach problem solving in science classes. Problem solving through Science, Northern California Science Committee.